RE: Netflix HTML5 player in IE 11 on Windows 8.1

Duncan Bayne wrote:
> > 
> > Tell us a better answer.
>
> That's a strawman, and you know it.
> 
> Although some people opposed to the EME proposal are opposed to DRM on
> principle, the argument I am making is that:
> 
>   DRM is inimical to the goals of the W3C, therefore, it should
> entirely
>   reject the EME proposal.
> 
> If you want to foist DRM upon your customers, fine, that's your call
> and
> they can vote with their wallets if they like.  Just don't compromise
> the W3C mission by having them shill it for you.

This of course presumes that the Mission of the W3C excludes understanding
and working with commercial interests and to meeting their needs as well. I
don't agree with that definition, and I don't think many of the actual
members of the Consortium would agree either, but please do feel free to
poll them.

This might be how you and others in this discussion see the W3C, and for
truth the W3C does have the interest of "the community" at heart, but that
community also includes "Big Media", their concerns, needs, wants, etc. as
well.  You continue to assert that work in this area is inimical, harmful to
the interests of the W3C, but do you *really* know and understand what those
interests are? It seems increasingly clear to me that perhaps you (and
others) don't; that your view of the role of the W3C is somewhat Pollyanna
in scope.

You can take a holier-than-thou approach if it makes you feel any better,
but I would personally lament a W3C that ignored and shunned business,
because business has every much a right to use the internet as you do. And
the owners of this Premium content have every much a right to come to this
consortium of businesses, academics and governments that is the W3C and seek
a solution that respects the rights of both parties, and to seek a
standardized solution that maximizes both the ability to distribute their
content, and yes, to make money. (That is, after all, what businesses are in
the business of doing)

You guys can stamp your feet all you want, and go one ad-nauseum about high
moral values and the 'rights' of the citizenry, but the W3C is not a morals
organization, a political party, or a religious institution, it is a
technical standards group. Until you and others are prepared to accept that,
this discussion will keep spinning around and around, gaining zero traction.

Given that EME is here, now, today, and that the majority if not all of the
modern browsers, platforms, and delivery channels are going to want to avail
"Premium" content to their users if they wish to remain relevant, and the
lawful owners of that content will not agree to the distribution of that
content without some form of content protection... well, that ship has
sailed, that genie is already out of the bottle, and trying to turn back the
hands of time is a fool's errand. EME, CDMs, DRM... none of that needs the
W3C's blessing to be part of the internet, and with or without the
involvement of the W3C, these technologies exist today, will exist tomorrow,
and will continue to exist for as long as they are needed.

Quite simply, I would suggest that you stop worrying about the W3C's
"reputation" here, and instead start working on something that will meet the
needs of *all* interested parties as articulated. (The W3C, BTW, is a great
place to do exactly that).  Repeatedly, that offer and request for a better
solution than the one currently being explored has come forth. That offer
has come from the CEO of the W3C, here from Mr. Singer of Apple, from Mark
Watson at Netflix, and numerous others.

We've all heard the morals argument(s) enough already, there is nothing more
that can be said there. The repeated answer that is coming back from the
consortium of businesses and engineers that is the W3C today is, "bring
forth a better solution, or please get out of the way".

While I do not officially speak on behalf of the W3C or its members (I'm
just a volunteer punter), it seems to me that it cannot be any clearer than
that.

JF

Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2013 23:43:46 UTC